In 21st-century American politics, and unfortunately also in 95% of American media coverage, there is a false linkage (usually tacit, sometimes explicit) between "values" and some vague, amorphous religious upbringing or belef.

Just about everyone -- even murderous sociopaths -- has values. What we need in our elected representatives, judges, and leaders are values that (1) promote human flourishing and the long-term survival of peaceful, productive human civilization and (2) are consistent with the American creed. In my opinion, public piety and private religious conviction are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions for a person to form and hold such "good" "values." But the 4th-century highjacking of public morality by organized religion has resulted in a conflation of "values" with "religion" in the minds of most of the public. The idea that pagans, pantheists, non-believers, etc. could have formed and practiced good, civilized values comes across as a complete, bewildering mystery to most Americans.

And so we now have "faith and values portfolios." I've never read one, and if I am handed one I expect I'll run in the opposite direction. I've heard enough of "faith and values." "Faith" in a political candidate -- the ability or inclination to believe anything on no evidence or lousy evidence -- doesn't interest me, and the more a candidate talks about his or her "faith" informing or influencing his or her official decision-making, the less inclined I am to vote for that candidate. Real values, stated in specifics, I can use. I can also use old-fashioned trust, confidence, and even hope. But "faith"? No thanks.

As a card-carrying member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, I genuinely hope that all democrats will vote for Hillary because of her "electability" (See also, John Kerry.)

John Edwards and Barack Obama are too much a breath of fresh air for me to simply ignore when I make my decision. Hillary, on the other hand, would bring no hesitation to my usual Republican vote.

John Edwards fights for the underdog and Barack is intelligent, passionate, and a welcome change from usual politicians. Oh that we Republicans had as unique and likeable candidates as these 2. We have 10 white men trying to convince us of their "Republican-ness". It's getting old. I wish we had a Red-State version of Obama.

The spectacle would be entertaining if it didn't indicate a terribly low level of intelligence among American voters.

The majority of Americans require their candidates to accessorize with Christian ornaments, but wouldn't dream for one minute of electing someone who sincerely advocated turning the other cheek, or who reminded them that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. If Jesus was right, most of the candidates themselves won't make it into heaven. But nobody wants to think about that.

I wonder how long it will take before most of the 70% percent of Americans who call themselves Christians realize that the actual values they live by intersect only coincidentally with what the Bible says Jesus said. There are practical reasons for being against murder and theft, but divorce is pretty convenient. So lots of Americans ignore Jesus' prohibition of divorce, and the divorced Reagan was much preferred to that stodgy, principled Carter. And that's just one example.

I was fortunate enough to hear John Edwards speaking at a campaign ralley last year for another candidate. He was by far the most inspirational person who spoke. It wasn't God talk. He just said things that made me once again feel that America could be a place where everyone is included. He gave me hope.